TAX FORECLOSURE
Auction sale process

Pung v. Isabella County Michigan, No. 25-95 (U.S. June 23, 2026)

The facts: The Pung family owed $2,241.93 in unpaid property taxes. Local tax authorities in Isabella County, Michigan, initiated foreclosure proceedings and sold the Pung home for $76,008 at public auction. The home had been assessed at $194,400 for tax purposes. The county followed the foreclosure process outlined in Michigan law, which required it to provide the Pungs with a redemption period to pay the tax debt, give public notice of the tax sale, sell the property to the highest bidder, and obtain a judgment of foreclosure from a Michigan court. The county initially kept all sale proceeds.

The type of case: Michael Pung sued, claiming the county violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The district court ruled that Pung was entitled to the surplus proceeds from the tax sale, but rejected his argument that compensation should be measured by the property’s fair market value. Pung appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that he should receive $73,766.07 (the difference between the sale price and the tax debt). Pung then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issues: The court considered whether “just compensation” following a tax sale should be measured by the auction sale price or the property’s hypothetical fair market value. The court also reviewed Pung’s claim that failing to compensate a property owner for the property’s fair market value constituted an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The court’s ruling: The court ruled that the proper measure of “just compensation” following a tax sale is the auction sale price rather than the property’s hypothetical fair market value. This conclusion is rooted in centuries of English and American law permitting property seizures for unpaid taxes, provided the government returns any surplus proceeds to the debtor.

The court also rejected Pung’s argument that the county imposed an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment by failing to compensate him for the property’s fair market value. The court noted that the claim lacked historical or precedential support and would also make tax sales impractical.

What this means for cities: Cities are not required to obtain fair market value for tax forfeited properties sold at auction if the sale is conducted fairly and openly in accordance with state law.

CANNABIS LAW
Retail registration

Schlichter v. City of Albert Lea No. A25-1356 (Minn. App. May 18, 2026) (nonprecedential)

The facts: Jacob Schlichter received a cannabis microbusiness license from the Office of Cannabis Management on July 17, 2025. That same day, he applied for a cannabis retail business registration from the City of Albert Lea. The city’s ordinance provided that registrations would be issued on a first-come, first-served basis. His application was forwarded to the City Council for final approval at the July 28, 2025, meeting.

Before the meeting, city officials received emails and social media messages raising concerns about Schlichter’s criminal history and conduct in the community. During the meeting, the Council’s discussion focused on general opposition to cannabis among both council members and constituents, as well as on frustration among council members and city staff over the Legislature’s decision to limit local government control over cannabis businesses. No council member expressed opposition based on Schlichter’s criminal history or any other issue specific to his qualifications to operate a cannabis business. A motion to approve his application failed on a 4-3 vote.

In August, the City Council approved registrations for two other cannabis business applicants, issuing the city’s two available registrations. No further action was taken on Schlichter’s application.

The type of case: Schlichter appealed the city’s decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals by filing a writ of certiorari, a formal request for a higher court to review the decision.

The issues: Because issuing cannabis retail registrations is a quasi-judicial decision — meaning a court-like process based strictly on evidence and established rules — the court considered whether the city’s denial of Schlichter’s application was arbitrary, legally flawed, or unsupported by evidence.

The court’s ruling: The court concluded that denying Schlichter’s application was arbitrary and inconsistent with the city’s ordinance. According to the city manager, Schlichter’s application met all requirements of the city’s cannabis ordinance. Because the city had adopted a first-come, first-served policy for awarding its limited number of registrations, it was required to follow that policy. Its failure to do so was contrary to its ordinance and could not be upheld. The court also concluded that the denial was arbitrary because the reasons discussed by the Council reflected opposition to cannabis generally rather than concerns specific to Schlichter’s application.

What this means for cities: When issuing cannabis retail registrations, cities must follow their adopted ordinances and state law. If a city denies a registration, it should be able to demonstrate reasons that justify the decision.

CRIMINAL LAW
Search warrants

Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (U.S. June 29, 2026)

The facts: On May 20, 2019, an armed suspect robbed a federal credit union in Midlothian, Virginia, stealing $195,000 from the vault. After failing to identify a suspect, officers learned through witness interviews and surveillance footage that the robber approached the bank while talking on a cellphone. Police applied for a geofence warrant, which identifies mobile devices active within a specific area during a set timeframe, from a Virginia circuit court to identify the suspect through Google location data.

At the time, Google used a three-step process to respond to law enforcement geofence warrants. The warrant in this case established a 150-meter radius around the bank. In the first step, Google provided anonymized location history for all devices that appeared within the geofence from 30 minutes before to 30 minutes after the robbery.

In the second step, law enforcement narrowed the list, and Google provided additional anonymized location showing those devices both inside and outside the geofence during the surrounding two-hour period.

In the third step, law enforcement narrowed the list again, and Google disclosed identifying information, including names and phone numbers, for the remaining users. Google ultimately identified three cellphone users, including Okello Chatrie, who was charged with robbery and related firearms offenses.

The type of case: Before trial, Chatrie moved to suppress the evidence obtained from Google. The district court denied the motion, finding that although the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. Chatrie appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issues: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the Fourth Amendment applies to geofence warrants. Specifically, it examined whether law enforcement conducted a Fourth Amendment search when it obtained the cellphone data that led to Chatrie’s arrest.

The court’s ruling: In a 6-3 decision, the court held that law enforcement conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment when it obtained Chatrie’s location data. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from arbitrary government intrusion and that location data provides a detailed picture of a person’s movements. Because users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information, the court returned the case to the lower court to determine whether the geofence warrant was reasonable.

What this means for cities: This decision is consistent with State of Minnesota v. Contreras-Sanchez, 33 N.W.3d 700 (Minn. 2026), a case highlighted in the July-August 2026 issue of Minnesota Cities. In Contreras-Sanchez, the Minnesota Supreme Court also ruled that cellphone location data is constitutionally protected, though did not fully clarify what makes a geofence warrant valid. Cities should continue to follow the guidance from that case by ensuring law enforcement provides specific, individualized criteria when seeking geofence warrants.

Written by Kyle Hartnett, assistant research manager with the League of Minnesota Cities. Contact: [email protected] or (651) 215-4084.